What's The Correct Call ???

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

You grab the ball to throw it. When you grab it, you also "HOLD" it. That establishes player control. Tapping the ball in the air or batting the ball along the ground does NOT establish player control because the ball never comes to rest in the batter/tipper's hand(s).

All true, JR, but the fact being ignored here is that the player in Billy's sitch HAD control earlier, then fumbled. If you think that doesn't matter, consider this...

*Airborne version: A-1 holds the ball. (Player control.) A-1 releases the ball, and it's not a try for goal. (Player control ends, team control remains.) A-1 moves to another spot on the court, and catches the ball. (Player control.) Travelling.

*Ground version: A-1 holds the ball. (Player control.) A-1 fumbles the ball. (Player control ends, team control remains.) A-1 bats the ball on the floor, no-one else touches it, and picks it up at another spot on the floor. (Player control.) Travelling.

A shot would certainly end team control, but a fumble does not. Whether you get from point A to point B by plane or train, you still get there.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by bainsey

All true, JR, but the fact being ignored here is that the player in Billy's sitch HAD control earlier, then fumbled. If you think that doesn't matter, consider this...

*Airborne version: A-1 holds the ball. (Player control.) A-1 releases the ball, and it's not a try for goal. (Player control ends, team control remains.) A-1 moves to another spot on the court, and catches the ball. (Player control.) Travelling.

*Ground version: A-1 holds the ball. (Player control.) A-1 fumbles the ball. (Player control ends, team control remains.) A-1 bats the ball on the floor, no-one else touches it, and picks it up at another spot on the floor. (Player control.) Travelling.

A shot would certainly end team control, but a fumble does not. Whether you get from point A to point B by plane or train, you still get there.

Lot of difference in catching a thrown ball and recovering one that was fumbled.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

All true, JR, but the fact being ignored here is that the player in Billy's sitch HAD control earlier, then fumbled. If you think that doesn't matter, consider this...

*Airborne version: A-1 holds the ball. (Player control.) A-1 releases the ball, and it's not a try for goal. (Player control ends, team control remains.) A-1 moves to another spot on the court, and catches the ball. (Player control.) Travelling.

*Ground version: A-1 holds the ball. (Player control.) A-1 fumbles the ball. (Player control ends, team control remains.) A-1 bats the ball on the floor, no-one else touches it, and picks it up at another spot on the floor. (Player control.) Travelling.

A shot would certainly end team control, but a fumble does not. Whether you get from point A to point B by plane or train, you still get there.

Even your airborne version is legal if, instead of "releases" the ball, you change it to "fumbles." Apples need to be compared with apples, not blueberries.

It's not about team control, it's about player control. A player may always retrieve a fumble. This is the same concept as the rebound tipped into the BC by the offense. Even if you're 100% sure he did it on purpose and the ball went precisely where it was supposed to go, player control is not established. You just can't go there.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

This is the same concept as the rebound tipped into the BC by the offense. Even if you're 100% sure he did it on purpose and the ball went precisely where it was supposed to go, player control is not established.

That sitch is about TEAM control, not player control. Team control has to be established in the front court for a backcourt violation to exist.

A fumble does not wipe the slate clean. Consider fumble-dribble-fumble vs. dribble-fumble-dribble. The former is legal; the latter is not --assuming there's a ball hold before the second dribble -- because you still have two dribbles.

The fumble was fine, until the player started directing the ball to another spot. Once he gained control a second time, I have a travel.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

That sitch is about TEAM control, not player control. Team control has to be established in the front court for a backcourt violation to exist.

A fumble does not wipe the slate clean. Consider fumble-dribble-fumble vs. dribble-fumble-dribble. The former is legal; the latter is not --assuming there's a ball hold before the second dribble -- because you still have two dribbles.

The fumble was fine, until the player started directing the ball to another spot. Once he gained control a second time, I have a travel.

The concept is the same, though, in that player control must be established in this situation in order to establish team control. It is about player control, whether or not you want to agree.

And again, directing the ball to a spot does not constitute player control, or the rebound play I just mentioned would be a violation. A controlled bat does not equal control, no matter how much you want it to.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bainsey

1) That sitch is about TEAM control, not player control. Team control has to be established in the front court for a backcourt violation to exist.

2)A fumble does not wipe the slate clean. Consider fumble-dribble-fumble vs. dribble-fumble-dribble. The former is legal; the latter is not --assuming there's a ball hold before the second dribble -- because you still have two dribbles.

3) The fumble was fine, until the player started directing the ball to another spot. Once he gained control a second time, I have a travel.

1) Team control has got dick-all to do with traveling. Never has, never will. The definition of traveling in rule 4-44 as already cited umpteen times says that you can't travel unless you're holding the ball. And holding the ball is player control as per rule 4-12-1. Team control is completely irrelevant when it comes to traveling. And we sureashell haven't been discussing backcourt violations.

2) How about dribble-fumble-grab ball? You do realize that's what you insist on saying has to be traveling, don't you? On second thought, no, you obviously don't realize that.

3) Did you even bother to read case book play 4.15COMMENT? The one that said that there's NO player control during a batt? You can't call a travel by rule on this play when the player regains player control unless the player actually travels AFTER regaining player control.


Bainsey, quite simply you have a very weak understanding of some very basic basketball rules. It's truly unfortunate that you a have a local IAABO board interpreter that shares that problem and can't help you out.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Bainsey, quite simply you have a very weak understanding of some very basic basketball rules. It's truly unfortunate that you a have a local IAABO board interpreter that shares that problem and can't help you out.

First of all, leave my interpreter out of this. I'm engaging in this rules dicussion; he is not. If we disagree, then fine. Let's back up our statements with facts, not attacks.

Now, my replies...

Team control is completely irrelevant when it comes to traveling. And we sureashell haven't been discussing backcourt violations.

That was Snaq's point, not mine. He was trying to inject the concept of player control into his backcourt example, and I was pointing out that's about team control, not player control. So, while you're correct that team control has nothing to do with travelling, that's not something I ever said.

How about dribble-fumble-grab ball? You do realize that's what you insist on saying has to be traveling, don't you?

You're 0-for-2, sir. I clearly stated the fumble "does not wipe the slate clean." So, dribble-fumble-grab ball = dribble-grab ball = legal.

Did you even bother to read case book play 4.15COMMENT? The one that said that there's NO player control during a batt? [sic]

Make that 0-for-3. I never said there was travelling during a bat, nor is this relevent to my point.

The very weak understanding is not my rules knowledge, sir, but rather your understanding of my point, as evident above. Or, you're ready to jump on me for disagreements we've had before, and aren't all that concerned about considering my point.

Re-read my point from earlier, and if you don't understand it, ask for clarity. Be careful what motivates you.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

That was Snaq's point, not mine. He was trying to inject the concept of player control into his backcourt example, and I was pointing out that's about team control, not player control. So, while you're correct that team control has nothing to do with travelling, that's not something I ever said.

And my point was that in the play I described (rebound bat), it is all about player control because player control is required to establish team control. The point was a controlled bat does not equal player control, and that's why team control isn't an issue yet on that rebound. Since a controlled bat doesn't establish player control, the guy in this case play never re-establishes player control after the initial fumble; therefore he cannot travel.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The point was a controlled bat does not equal player control, and that's why team control isn't an issue yet on that rebound.

We agree on that, but here's the difference between your sitch and Billy's:

Yours: Rebound (no control)- tip by A-1 (still no control) - ball goes into A's backcourt, A-2 holds the ball (player control) = legal, because there was no team control in the frontcourt after the shot.

Billy's: A-1 holds the ball (player control) - A-1 fumbles - A-1 bats the ball intentionally on the floor - A-1 picks up the ball (player control) = travelling.

More succinctly, the fact that Billy's sitch started with control, and yours did not, is the key difference. Again, I see intentionally moving the ball on the floor the same as moving the ball in the air, provided there was player control on both ends.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bainsey

The very weak understanding is not my rules knowledge, sir, but rather your understanding of my point, as evident above.

I'm done, bainsey. I'm tired of repeating myself and it's obviously a waste of both our times.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I'm done, bainsey. I'm tired of repeating myself and it's obviously a waste of both our times.

Probably so. Suit yourself, sir. You wouldn't have to repeat yourself, anyway, if you aimed for understanding.